Hanaguma

according to Reuters the current President's approval now stands at........ 38%. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden-approval-falls-holding-near-low-end-his-presidency-reutersipsos-finds-2022-08-30/

...then RICO statutes would surely apply, no? Again, you like so many others are allowing your <deleted> to colour your intellect. Not sure why, but The Donald really brings out the tiny fisted tantrums in so many people.

This sounds more like a "basket of conspiracies" than a "basket of deplorables". Interesting the story doesn't mention actual left wing violence- attempted assassination of GOP members at a baseball game, attempted assassination of Justice Kavanaugh, ANTIFA burning federal facilities across the country, etc. I guess since the "ultra MAGA" label didn't stick, Biden is going to go with "semi-fascist" instead. Haven't heard what exactly that means, but never mind. It plays well on Twitter.

...but others who both trespassed AND attacked the police got lesser sentences. Plus AFAIK no evidence that he forced his way into the building. He followed others, didn't assault anyone, never spoke a word to the Senator or his security, was never charged with assault, spent less than 40 minutes in the Capitol. That is more than a month of prison per minute of trespassing.

There was no evidence presented that he threatened the Senator, or even spoke to him. Not sure what relevance his tattoos show, perhaps just that he is a patriot. I have no trouble with him being charged and convicted but the sentence is quite high for a non violent crime. Higher even than some previous convictions of people who actually assaulted police officers.

Seems rather harsh for a non violent offense. He did not attack any police, nor did he threaten anyone, nor did he say/do anything to Senator Schumer.

Really? You certainly seemed "interested" when you thought you were scoring cheap political points against the former President though...

Nice try at deflection, but I did not mention dementia in my posts. I do think there are some obvious issues of cognitive decline with the President- you can see in his movements, mannerisms, and speech. But that is part of life for a man pushing 80 years old. As to what is causing them, I will leave up to health care professionals. I mean, God forbid the media would ever make unsubstantiated speculations on the health (physical or mental) of the President. That would be irresponsible. Now, any thoughts on why he is absent from the White House more than any other recent president? Or why he is not available to the press?

I think you know what I meant. "Those who borrowed the money have a responsibility to pay it back".

Not my guess, just facts. Any comment on Joe's disappearing act? You were wrong in comparing his vacation time and availability to the Bad Orange Man.

But it IS $20,000 higher than those others. As I repeatedly said, going to uni gives a significant salary advantage. Time to pay up. You (students) borrowed the money, and are reaping the benefits. Time to honor your obligations.

Actually, he is spending a LOT of his time on the beach in Delaware. 150 days so far, according to this article. More than Trump, Obama, or Bush at this point in their respective presidencies. https://nypost.com/2022/08/22/bidens-vacation-time-outstrips-trump-obama-bush-after-trip/ Believe he has done exactly 1 interview in the past 6 months, back in June. From taking office on 20 January 2021 up to 29 April 2022, Biden gave 23 interviews. Between 20 January 2017 and 29 April 2018, by contrast, Trump gave 95 interviews, according to the White House Transition Project, a non-partisan group that chronicles presidential communications. Over their equivalent periods, Barack Obama gave 187 interviews, George W Bush gave 60, Bill Clinton gave 64, George HW Bush gave 70 and Ronald Reagan gave 78, the Project found. Biden has also held fewer solo press conferences than other recent presidents. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/05/joe-biden-few-press-interviews-media-access Wonder why that is....

Also rarely allowed to have interviews with jounalists, or press conferences. His availabity is abominable. Clearly he is being sheltered by his staff, with the full cooperation of the media establishment.

According to Wharton, that is not true. 63% goes to people earning over $80,000.

That is a good point. Frankly, aptitude testing should be a must for most, if not all, degree programmes. A lot can also be learned at the community college/vocational level. There is no need to pile up 100,000 plus in debt to study English Lit. or History.

Never said that. But the chance that they are under large debt burdens, caused by their personal decisions, are much lower. You take out a loan for a service and use the service, you pay it back. Especially if your family income is six figures plus. This is the part I truly don't understand- how is it possible to justify people with household incomes over 200 grand getting debt "relief".

NO, the government already lent the money. Now they have to take money to fill that hole. And yes the recipients have extra income, but at the expense of the people who paid to fill the hole. Classic income redistribution in an upwards direction.

If I came across as criticizing, my apologies. Not my intention. Just genuinely curious about the situation. So your daughter will be a doctor, congratulations are in order! Are you really paying the interest rate you mentioned? That is shocking. I thought federal loan interest was lower than that.

Exactly. If there is one thing the world needs less of, it is "communications" degree holders. Or perhaps "visual arts" majors. Oh, and lawyers. And of course the aforementioned Interpretive Dance people.

Like I said before, the gap is about $22,000 per year, and $800,000 over a lifetime. This is easily discovered by myriad studies. Government interference in loans has had a great deal to do with the increased cost of university in the first place. So I could see a very limited plan to help the very desperate, if it were paired with reform to the loan system- basically government getting out of the loan business. It is proven that if you subsidize something, it gets more expensive.

Yeah, I said that already. The uber rich will not be the main beneficiaries. Yet as you see, neither will the poor. Only 11% of the benefits to the bottom 20% of income earners. I have yet to hear any argument that people in the top 60% of earners, whose annual income tops $80,000, are deserving of this bonus. The only obvious answer is that this is a vote buying scheme. If you want to help people in financial trouble, there is no reason to limit that help to those with student loans only. Unless of course you are courting them as possible voters...

How does this put more money into the economy? The government takes $300 billion from people, gives it to other people, where does "more money" come from? Of course it does add $300 billion to the debt. I think I could possibly find a better use for spending $300 billion than this. Did your daughter benefit financially from her education? Looking back, did the easy availability of government loans influence your decisions? I am genuinely curious.

The "granulated data" shows that Americans in the lowest fifth of income will only see 11-12% of the benefit for this program. That number steadily increases through the quintiles until the very top quintile. Those people have the means to pay back their loans quickly. 70% of the money will go to people making more than 82k per year. Wharton numbers, not mine. So tell me again how this helps poor and working class Americans. https://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/issues/2022/8/23/forgiving-student-loans

You are presenting a false binary- the choices aren't "university" or "poverty". Many options exist for those who want to further their education without running up huge debts- community college, in state university, living at home, working to save before entering uni, trade school.... these are prudent things to do which are de-incentivized by cancelling student loans. As for who benefits? Wharton School says that 70% of the money will go to the top 60% of earners. Less than 12% will go to people in the lowest quintile of earners. So as a way to help those truly in need, it is a bust.

Because a lot of government programmes are designed to help people who, through no fault of their own, are in bad circumstances. That does not apply here. There was no compulsion to go to university and pile up debt. It was a choice freely made. Plus this one will inevitably help those who are already well off, relatively speaking. It is a hard sell to convince people that college grads, who everyone admits make more money than non-grads, deserve a handout.